The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
List price: £9.26|
Our price: £8.33
Usually dispatched within 24 hours
Average customer rating:
3.5 out of 5
ISBN/ASIN : 0830816984
Manufacturer : InterVarsity Press|
Release data : March, 1994
Search for related products
A selection of product reviews
Oh, puh-lease.... Stop wasting everyone's time.
"Creation Science" is an OXYMORON, and the only thing it's proponents, and this sorry book, have in common is a pitiful, interminable attempt to gain some measure of respectibility by calling this crap "science". Science it is not. What it is, is "science bashing" in the guise of the very thing which it hopes to discredit. Congrats on the fine examples of bad science, pseudoscience and anti-science.
Are Ye of so little faith, are ye so anxious and insecure in your beliefs that you need to make such futile attempts to employ so poorly, that which you disdain (science), in a vain attempt to find validation for your beliefs? Why even bother? You'll not change your beliefs and no one but the gullible will buy your myths. Go ye forth and get a brain. Nothing here but clinical evidence of a viral infection: the "faith virus".
Fruitless question, anyway...
Well, this book should be ignored even before reading just because of its title. It says that there's a "Creation Hypothesis" and "scientific evidence for an intelligent designer". The authors make this joke and show that maybe they misunderstood what science is. Creation hypothesis... well, the scientific method says that all that is science must be tested, or able to be tested. So, it's imposible to have a "creation hypothesis" because one simply cannot test the existence of a "creator". One can believe in that, but cannot test, and beliefs aren't science, are they? The same can be said for the "scientific evidence for an intelligent designer", how is it possible to have evidence for something that can't even be tested? If something (the observed facts) is so complex that we cannot imagine better "explanation" (hypothesis) than "intelligent design", it doesn't mean that there's no non-creationist explanation, but only that we're not advanced enough yet (and we may never be) to work the facts out. No need to invent a "creator", or all questions could be easily answered in this manner, and no more progress would be achieved. That's the way it was in Middle Age, ain't it? Reality is used to be stranger than beliefs and common sense. If you don't think so, read something about relativity, for example. Science evolves, beliefs not. Scientific hypothesis (and creationism is no such thing) can be substituted, improved or be proven entirely wrong. Beliefs not (who is right, Christ, Budha, Mohammad, the african animists, nobody? Can it be tested?). Darwin improved Lamarck and others, and he himself has been improved over time, as Einstein improved and extended Newton. The important fact here is: what's being compared in this debate and in this book? Apples with oranges? Yes, science compared to beliefs, myths, religion, or call it what you will. Even if evolution, geology, etc. are completely wrong (and nobody has the slightest evidence that they could be), it isn't evidence that there's a creator.
"Creation: 0, Evolution: 1"
Obviously, I do not agree with the reader's comments below. If one wants to enjoy a book that analyzes the question of religious versus scientific creation, I recommend "The Bible According to Einstein," where there are some interesting suggestions of the presence of a supreme being but where the natural processes that play such an important role in the physical world are also emphasized.